Talk:Mormonism

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions; Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box. After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page. (This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

Edit request from Entranteyeguy, 22 May 2011

The first sentence reads: Mormonism is the religion practiced by Mormons, and is the predominant religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement.

For clarity, this should be changed to: Mormonism is the nickname given to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by persons not of the faith, and is the predominant religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement. [1]

[1. See mormon.org and lds.org for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints logo on the top left-hand corner.]

The third paragraph reads: Mormon theology is a form of Christian primitivism that shares a common set of beliefs with the rest of the Latter Day Saint movement, including use of, and belief in, the Bible, as well as other religious texts including the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. It differs from other Latter Day Saint movement traditions in that it also accepts the Pearl of Great Price as part of its canon, and it has a history of teaching eternal marriage, eternal progression, and plural marriage (although the LDS Church had abandoned the practice by the early 20th century). Cultural Mormonism includes a lifestyle promoted by the Mormon institutions, and includes cultural Mormons who identify with the culture, but not necessarily the theology.

This is inaccurate. "Mormons" and Latter Day Saints are the exact same entity, and therefore, "Mormons" and Latter-Day Saints alike consider the Pearl of Great Price to be scripture. The last sentence of the paragraph only serves to confuse, and should be deleted altogether. (I think what the writer was trying to say is that there are some "Mormons" who live in or grew up in Utah among the Mormon culture who no longer practice the religion.) This paragraph should be changed to:

Mormon theology is a form of Christian primitivism whose scriptural canon includes the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Entranteyeguy (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Some members of the Latter Day Saint movement—for examples members of the Community of Christ—are not part of "Mormonism", and members of those churches would consider themselves "Latter Day Saints" but not "Mormons". The term "Mormons" is usually restricted to those who followed Brigham Young after Joseph Smith died. This includes the LDS Church and Mormon fundamentalists and various other branch-offs from these two groups. Those Latter Day Saints who followed Joseph Smith but remained in Illinois or Missouri after his death are not regarded as practitioners of "Mormonism" as the term is used today, and they don't accept the Pearl of Great Price as scripture or plural marriage as a practice once authorized by Joseph Smith, as most Mormons do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but Good Ol'factory's response matches everything I've seen about this before--it isn't actually correct to equate Mormonism and LDS, despite the fact that many people do. Entranteyeguy, if you have references that verify that the groups are the same, please present them here, but without that and a lot of discussion, this change can't be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.218.146.197, 24 May 2011

The following paragraph should be clarified:

In many ways, the religion differs from orthodoxy as held by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity. To those for whom Christianity is defined by that orthodoxy, Mormonism's differences place it outside the umbrella of Christianity altogether.

After the first sentence you should add: "One of the fundamental ways Mormonism distinguishes itself from that orthodoxy is in its rejection of the Holy Trinity. Instead Mormons believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are distinct entities, not all part of one God."

98.218.146.197 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be elaborated after the next paragraph; is there a good reason to summarize it earlier? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

..and no one has put in a section on the criticism of Mormonism? Seems to me that this article shouldn't be so pro-mormon. Paleo Kid (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, "Mormonism" is rather vague. This article simply gives some history and points to other articles about the specific churches that fall under the category. Criticism of Mormonism leads to criticism of the largest Mormon church. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fix for wordy and speculative sentence.

The article reads,

"Partly for public relations and proselytizing reasons, the LDS Church seeks to distance itself from other branches of Mormonism, and particularly from the practice of polygamy."

Although the word "partly" exists, this still seems to speculate on the underlying motivation of the Church in this context. Are we to assume that if it was popular and helpful for proselytizing the Church would reverse its decision?

I propose a simpler rewording as follows;

"Presently, the LDS Church continues its efforts to distance itself from other branches of Mormonism, and particularly from the practice of polygamy."

This drops the speculation and simplifies the paragraph. Shorter is usually better.

--Canadiandy talk 01:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The entire section and the one following are unsourced. Before you begin to reword everything, maybe it would be good to get what we have sourced, or get sources for the changes you want to make. -- Avanu (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a partial source. . . "Although [Fundamentalists] comprise a tiny fraction of all the kinds of Mormons, they generate press far out of proportion to their numbers. Some attempt to remain within the fold of the mother church in the belief that the temple rites still are valid. The church repudiates these groups and excommunicates their members if discovered." -- Richard L. Bushman Mormonism: a very short introduction page 91. That's the strongest statement the book makes about the church distancing itself from fundamentalist sects. He doesn't mention any public relations and proselytizing. Those sound like original research and speculation to me. I agree with the proposed change. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Adjwilley. @Avanu, I am not proposing addition of any new information, merely a rewording of a point made so that the unsourced material is removed. Please compare the new edit and see if you still have any major concerns.--Canadiandy talk 21:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Canadiandy's rewording sounds fine. As to the sourcing issue, that statement sounds pretty obviously true--everybody familiar with the issue knows that the LDS Church has been trying to distance itself from fundamentalism in the public eye, so there ought to a source somewhere that says that. COGDEN 01:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I found this news article from the Associated Press. I'd rather have a book or journal article, however, if one exists. COGDEN 01:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute the Church is using its public relations arm to distance itself. I just don't see solid evidence that the first motivation of the Church in doing so is for PR or proselytizing purposes. It's a grey area and that is why I think it was wise for us to state the known and avoid the speculative.--Canadiandy talk 15:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

For our purposes, possibly more relevant than finding solid evidence that it is true would be finding references that report the suggestion of others that this is what the church is doing. You're not going to find evidence it is true unless there is a statement from the church stating its purpose, which is unlikely. It's far more likely you will find sources similar to those COGDEN provided that suggest a purpose-driven approach to what it is doing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Good olfactory. The onus is not on the Church to disprove accusations, it is on us to properly source and support what is written. COgden himself sees the weakness in the article. It does well at pointing out that the Church is distancing itself from polygamy and fundamentalist groups. I have never had a problem with that. Still, it does not evidence the Church's motives which is the point the fix addressed. Until there is good evidence as to the Church's motives we are involved in speculation which is contrary to WP guidelines.--Canadiandy talk 16:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate to report what others have said about it. That's what I am saying. We're not supposed to interpret at WP, we just report. If others have consistently said stuff in reliable sources, we report it, whether or not we think it's too speculative. I don't think the issue of what the church is or is not required to do comes into issue either way since all we care about it what has been written about the topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right. At Wikipedia it's fine to quote speculation, as long as it is sourced properly (i.e., according to the New York Times, blah blah blah). But to just state something as fact because one reporter speculated it in an editorial is not good sourcing. Also, if you read the article COgden linked to carefully it does not state anywhere what the Church's motive was in distancing itself, only that it is distancing itself. Not WHY they are doing it, merely WHAT they are doing and the context in which they are doing it. The unsourced speculation is all that was removed.--Canadiandy talk 03:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that re: the specific ref. I'm just proposing that if we can (theoretically speaking) find appropriate sources that say it, it could be included. I wasn't meaning that this source was adequate for this purpose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--Canadiandy talk 15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. The revised version now has 3 sources (one from the LDS style guide) and none of them speculate. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Theological foundations" section (some ideas)

I think this article has a couple of structural problems, one of them being in the current section on Theological foundations. Currently, the section is made up of two subsections: "Relation to Christianity," and "Relation to Judaism." While these two subsections are informative and helpful, I think that the Foundations section as a whole needs to be expanded with more subsections outlining the basic beliefs in Mormonism. If you look at other Wikipedia religion articles (i.e. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Methodism, Anglicanism even Jehovah's Witnesses) they all have well-developed Belief sections, outlining the basic doctrines, beliefs, creeds, articles of faith, 5 pillars, you name it.

Specific changes I recommend within the Theological Foundations section:

1. Multiple subsections or paragraphs before the "Relation to" subsections (with those two coming at the end)
2. A subsection or paragraph on "Scriptures" containing the 6th paragraph of the "Relation to Christianity" section. This would probably be more work than a simple cut/paste, but hopefully wouldn't require too much more writing.
3. A subsection or paragraph(s) on "Restoration" containing all but the last sentence of the 1st paragraph, and the entire 5th paragraph in "Relation to Christianity."
4. A subsection or paragraph on Mormon cosmology (spirit world, plan of salvation, heaven and hell type stuff)
5. A paragraph on ordinances that talks about baptisms, sacrament, marriage and sealings, etc. as well as baptism for the dead (which is referred to but not explained in the Judaism section).
6. A subsection or paragraph on Revelation. This could talk about both "modern revelation" from prophets, as well as the "personal revelation" that is so central to Mormonism. (This might do well if it were placed immediately after the bit on scripture)
7. Somewhere in all this, I think the Articles of Faith should be mentioned explicitly.
8. Possibly changing the title "Theological foundations" to something more simple, like "Beliefs." (I'm ambivalent on this one, but I think it would make the article more accessible to your average reader.)

If these changes were made, then instead of trying to haphazardly explain Mormon theology in relation to Christianity and Judaism, we can outline the main beliefs in an organized fashion, and then refer to them in the Christianity and Judaism sections. Thoughts? -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Liberal Reformist theology?

All right. Where in the world did the Liberal reformist theology section come from? If there is such a movement it is not a significant movement from "within" the LDS Church. In fact it could be argued that any seeking "reform" from within the Church are as much LDS as Luther was Catholic. Yep, Luther was Catholic. Yep, these individuals are likely members on record of the Church. But to understand the Church and its doctrine of sustaining the doctrines and leadership (by free will) it could be argued that members with a problem with Church doctrine and practices are on the high road to apostasy. Given that this "group" has no authority given them from the Church to act as such, and that their numbers would make up such a small percentage of general membership (I've never met one), It seems that this is more of a fringe group than a movement from within and should be identified as such. I would argue it only deserves a one sentence mention and not a whole section.--Canadiandy talk 17:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

All right, having reread the section I see it is meant to focus on different groups seeking liberal reform historically and at present. To fix the article so it focuses on that please consider the following change;

Liberal reformist theology

Historically there have been pockets within Mormonism seeking theological liberal reform of their religion. Most of these have been members of the LDS Church. While some of these individuals were excommunicated,[Godbe/Watt] others left the LDS Church but consider themselves to be cultural Mormons. Others have formed new religions. One of the first of these, the Godbeites, broke away from the LDS Church in the late 19th century on the basis of both political and religious liberalism. More recently, the former Restoration Church of Jesus Christ broke from the LDS Church as an LGBT-friendly denomination.--Canadiandy (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)